Author Topic: The heresy of Lumen Gentium: Subsistit in (Read 9268 times)

Daegus · « **Reply #60 on:** July 11, 2011, 07:10:50 PM »

When Protestants baptise their infants, they do so validly but illicitly. Every time they do so they incur damnation upon themselves because they do so out of disobedience to lawful Church authority--- that is to say, the Magisterial authority. The reason as to why they can't be re-baptised is because we believe in only ONE baptism, and the Catholic Church does hold that they baptise correctly even if illicitly.

Also, while their children ARE technically being baptised into the Catholic Church regardless of whether or not the people baptising them believe that, once they reach the age of reason they are likely automatically outside of it because of the years of indoctrination and their identity as Protestants. Even 1 mortal sin will send their child straight to Hell. Simply praying that Jesus will save them is useless because their religion bears no grace. They would need very deep and true contrition and a very special grace from God to be able to be saved from their imminent demise.

Also, you may want to note that children under the age of reason do not need to profess any faith. They can't profess any faith because there's no way they can understand it without the use of reason. This is why we have baptismal sponsors. To profess the faith on behalf of the children.

JPaul · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2011, 03:33:14 PM »

Quote from: ajpirc

The definition of no salvation outside the Catholic Church:

Does it mean that one must fully be inside the Church?

or

Does it mean that salvation only comes from Christ, through the Catholic Church?

The first is true, thesecond as understood by the Conciliar Church means that they can be saved in their heretical religions but, it is through the grace of the Catholic Church. That is a false and misleading statement .

A Protestant can be saved only by renouncing his false religion and entering into the sole ark of salvation, the Catholic Church. Until he does this he remains outside of the Church and salvation.

ajpirc · « **Reply #62 on:** July 13, 2011, 05:17:48 PM »

Can somebody find the original Latin for Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum?

ajpirc · « **Reply #63 on:** July 13, 2011, 08:19:46 PM »

I found this website that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:

Quote

So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.

I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?

LordPhan · « **Reply #64 on:** July 13, 2011, 09:18:24 PM »

Quote from: ajpirc

I found this website that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:

Quote
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.

I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?

I am more then willing to be corrected on this, so get a couple opinions first, since I am not a theologian and this is high theology.

From what I understand Invincible ignorence would be the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived. In which they had no possiblity of knowing the true faith they would have invicible ignorence and if they lived according to the natural law that is ingrained in them at birth and lived a good noble altruistic life then perhaps God might allow them into heaven. It is not a guarentee.

The concillar church would have you believe anyone can have invicible ignorence, wherefore I may be slightly wrong on what constitutes it, I do know the concillar church has warped it into something it is not.

ajpirc · « **Reply #65 on:** July 13, 2011, 09:29:33 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: ajpirc
I found this website that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:

Quote
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.

I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?

I am more then willing to be corrected on this, so get a couple opinions first, since I am not a theologian and this is high theology.

From what I understand Invincible ignorence would be the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived. In which they had no possiblity of knowing the true faith they would have invicible ignorence and if they lived according to the natural law that is ingrained in them at birth and lived a good noble altruistic life then perhaps God might allow them into heaven. It is not a guarentee.

The concillar church would have you believe anyone can have invicible ignorence, wherefore I may be slightly wrong on what constitutes it, I do know the concillar church has warped it into something it is not.

Wouldn't this contradict Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?

LordPhan · « **Reply #66 on:** July 13, 2011, 09:38:39 PM »

Quote from: ajpirc

Quote from: LordPhan
Quote from: ajpirc
I found this website that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:

Quote
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.

I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?

I am more then willing to be corrected on this, so get a couple opinions first, since I am not a theologian and this is high theology.

From what I understand Invincible ignorence would be the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived. In which they had no possiblity of knowing the true faith they would have invicible ignorence and if they lived according to the natural law that is ingrained in them at birth and lived a good noble altruistic life then perhaps God might allow them into heaven. It is not a guarentee.

The concillar church would have you believe anyone can have invicible ignorence, wherefore I may be slightly wrong on what constitutes it, I do know the concillar church has warped it into something it is not.

Wouldn't this contradict Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?

I believe this falls under extraordinary circuмstances, wherein normal circuмstances would be Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, when it is not possible for one to have ever entered the Church God MAY reprieve him in his infinite mercy.
Naturally he is not bound to do so and one should not bank on this, of course attempting to bank on it would entail knowing about the church and would thusly negate the infallible ignorence and thus not apply.

ajpirc · « **Reply #67 on:** July 16, 2011, 10:20:21 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

A Protestant can be saved only by renouncing his false religion and entering into the sole ark of salvation, the Catholic Church. Until he does this he remains outside of the Church and salvation.

That is by becoming Catholic, correct?

Santo Subito · « **Reply #68 on:** July 17, 2011, 09:28:32 PM »

AJ,

"Subsistit in" is not heretical when properly understood according to the Church's Magisterium.

In 2007 the CDF declared that, "“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church.”

Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of The Doctrine on the Church (2007), Response to Third Question.

The CDF makes clear that this phrase and others were subject to misunderstanding and, with the 2007 explanations, sought to clear the air.

"Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate."

Thus the term "subsistit in" is congruent with previous Catholic teaching.

I hope this helps.

God bless.

ajpirc · « **Reply #69 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:39:32 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

"Subsistit in" is not heretical when properly understood according to the Church's Magisterium.

In order for Lumen Gentium to be in line with Catholic Tradition, subsistit in must be taken out. Where in Catholic Tradition (prior to Vatican II) does it say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and also in heretical sects? It doesn't. You can try to bring this heresy in line with Catholic dogma, but it won't work.

Quote

In 2007 the CDF declared that, "“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church.”

And Pope Benedict XVI said unbaptized infants can be in Heaven that same year, contradicting Church teaching on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation and Original Sin. Not everything that comes out of Rome is infallible, in fact, I don't think it's even possible for the CDF to speak infallibly.

Quote

The CDF makes clear that this phrase and others were subject to misunderstanding and, with the 2007 explanations, sought to clear the air.

Again, not everything that comes out of Rome is infallible. Why would the CDF under a Pope that was at Vatican II want to disagree with Vatican II's doctrines? The Pope is only enforcing the new teachings that Vatican II created.

Quote

Thus the term "subsistit in" is congruent with previous Catholic teaching.

It is, is it? Where so? Catholic teaching doesn't say that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are two separate entities with on subsisting in the other. Or that the Church of Christ subsists also in heretical sects making them equal with the Catholic Church and taking away her authority over Christians. If it does say this somewhere, please point it out.